Streaming prices have surged nearly 70% in four years, and they're still going up

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,182   +62
Staff
Bottom line: Consumers are paying more each month to keep up with new shows, movies, and live programming as streaming services continue to raise subscription prices. The eight major services now cost about $151 a month combined for ad-free plans purchased separately, without bundles, compared with roughly $90 for a similar lineup four years ago.

Apple TV+ has had one of the largest increases. The service launched in 2019 at $4.99 a month and has since raised its price by 200%. It still has a smaller overall library than most of its main competitors, but Apple has continued to add original series and films while treating the service as part of its broader subscription business.

Disney+ has also moved well beyond its original price. It launched in 2019 at $6.99 a month without advertising. Its ad-supported plan now costs $11.99 a month, while the ad-free version costs more. Paramount+'s least expensive tier has risen 80% in five years. Netflix's Premium plan is up 125% from its 2013 price.

The pace of increases has recently picked up as well. Streaming prices across the market rose 11.8% over the past 12 months. In 2023, the average increase was 17.7%. Apple TV+ raised its price 50% in the past year, and Peacock's plans rose by roughly the same amount.

HBO Max has been a notable exception. Its price has increased 23% over six years, less than most of its rivals. But HBO entered the streaming market at a higher price than newer services.

The industry's pricing has risen faster than inflation. Consumer prices have increased by an average of 3.84% annually since 2019, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Streaming services have raised prices far more aggressively, even as companies add lower-cost, ad-supported plans.

Cable and satellite television have also become more expensive over time, but their increases have been more gradual. A Hollywood Reporter analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found that cable and satellite prices rose by an average of 3.9% a year, excluding the late 1980s, when deregulation led to a temporary surge. That does not mean cable is suddenly a bargain. Full packages from providers such as Spectrum and DirecTV can cost more than $170 a month.

Streaming companies are under pressure to make their businesses more profitable after spending heavily on original programming, subscriber growth, and technology. The low launch prices that helped services build audiences are giving way to a model built around higher subscription fees, advertising, bundles, and tighter rules on account sharing.

Consumers still have more flexibility than they did with traditional cable. They can cancel services at any time and return when a particular show or sports season begins. That has led more viewers to rotate subscriptions instead of keeping every service active year-round.

The approach can cut costs, but it also changes how people watch television. Viewers may have to wait until a season ends or a show moves to another platform before subscribing. The days of paying for one service and finding most of what you want to watch in one place are largely over.

Permalink to story:

 
Everyone was racing to be the one service that would make all the money by "winning" (sound familiar AI companies?).

That justified crazy money spent obtaining content and low prices to amass users, but at a certain point you have to make a profit or go out of business.

What's disappointing is not that streaming is $20 or $30/month but what you get for that money is mostly mindless drivel.

I've gone back to watching a few great, classic shows and movies from the 90s and 00s. The Matrix was right about the peak of our civilization. It helps that I have limited time for TV.
 
Everyone was racing to be the one service that would make all the money by "winning" (sound familiar AI companies?).

That justified crazy money spent obtaining content and low prices to amass users, but at a certain point you have to make a profit or go out of business.

What's disappointing is not that streaming is $20 or $30/month but what you get for that money is mostly mindless drivel.

I've gone back to watching a few great, classic shows and movies from the 90s and 00s. The Matrix was right about the peak of our civilization. It helps that I have limited time for TV.
Dunno what it’s like in the US but I have Sky in the UK, which is exorbitant but I get effectively all their TV including movies and sports and then throw in the ad free versions of Netflix, paramount, HBO, Disney and discovery for nothing. It is £60 a month but 45 of that are the sports, cinema, kids and UHD add ons.
 
Paramount is a perfect example of a company putting out garbage to justify its platform. They made a bunch of new star trek shows that are mostly hated by people who like star trek and they just kept doing it for years despite the terrible feedback. They used access journalism and bots to prop up reviews across the internet, hugely through IGN, and they have run their longest running franchises virtually into the ground in the process.
 
Everyone was racing to be the one service that would make all the money by "winning" (sound familiar AI companies?).

That justified crazy money spent obtaining content and low prices to amass users, but at a certain point you have to make a profit or go out of business.

What's disappointing is not that streaming is $20 or $30/month but what you get for that money is mostly mindless drivel.

I've gone back to watching a few great, classic shows and movies from the 90s and 00s. The Matrix was right about the peak of our civilization. It helps that I have limited time for TV.
I think of streaming as similar in quality to daytime television similar to things like golden girls, or every body loves Ramen. And I kind of like those shows to some extent, they have a place. The thing with streaming is they put out things similar in quality, slap a story on it and expect to win awards for it. Meanwhile, I could shoot something similar in quality on my Sony A6000 by lower the fstop on my wide-angle lense.

This was fine when streaming was $5-7/m. Most of the time I'll have silly daytime TV shows on in the background as I work, but none of them are making the riveting content they want people to think they are. Frankly, I get more use out of YouTube with an ad blocker than I do out of anything and that's free.
 
And they will keep doing it, because despite the outcry, the backlash, the protests, subscriber numbers just keep climbing. People keep paying!

For instance, despite three major price hikes and the crackdown on sharing, Netflix's sub count has more then doubled from 151 million to 325 million since 2019.

You get what you pay for. Companies have no reason to NOT raise prices, seeing as it isnt limiting their sub count.

For me, I dont sub to anything. If there is a good show, I buy it on blu ray and rip it to my media system. If there is no blu ray, it gets pirated.
 
I only pay for Discovery+, no ads. I think it's about $11 a month after taxes. Wife watches the crap out of that channel and there are a couple shows on there I like.
 
The best library, containing all the content ever made, is on the seas of the Caribbean.

I don't watch modern TV. Only old programmes from the '90s or earlier. At present, I am watching Star Trek: Voyager and The Outer Limits.
 
And they will keep doing it, because despite the outcry, the backlash, the protests, subscriber numbers just keep climbing. People keep paying!

For instance, despite three major price hikes and the crackdown on sharing, Netflix's sub count has more then doubled from 151 million to 325 million since 2019.

You get what you pay for. Companies have no reason to NOT raise prices, seeing as it isnt limiting their sub count.

For me, I dont sub to anything. If there is a good show, I buy it on blu ray and rip it to my media system. If there is no blu ray, it gets pirated.
Well they increasing revenue despite losing subscribers with the price increases so until that trend flips, nothing will change.
 
Well they increasing revenue despite losing subscribers with the price increases so until that trend flips, nothing will change.
Netflix's sub count has increased continuously dating all the way back to 2011. The price increases did not deter growth.
 
They'll keep adding more and more ads and keep increasing their prices until people really get fed up and start canceling their services. Then those people will turn to torrents and other ways to obtain content. That's when the MPAA and RIAA start crying about piracy cutting into their profits, despite the fact that they're making record profits year after year. Now if someone could just figure out where the problem lies.
 
Netflix's sub count has increased continuously dating all the way back to 2011. The price increases did not deter growth.
Sort of, they're retention has dropped. Streaming services have turned into something people rotate when a show they like has more seasons. There are also weird deals like I think my phone plan offers free Hulu and my homeowners insurance was offering a year of some combo of streaming services if we upgraded to some plan. So when they post these numbers I'm wondering how many of those belong to the same household. And like my phone offering Hulu, they probably have some deal for a fraction of the price for bulk licensing
 
Back